Gov. Neil Abercrombie’s push for a soda tax last year fizzled amid pushback from the businesses and lawmakers who argued whether the move was more of a revenue grab instead of an effort at health reform. The governor says he
Gov. Neil Abercrombie’s push for a soda tax last year fizzled amid pushback from the businesses and lawmakers who argued whether the move was more of a revenue grab instead of an effort at health reform.
The governor says he — reluctantly — won’t be pushing a soda tax this session, but he hasn’t given up on a quest to reduce the state’s obesity rates.
In his State of State address, the governor said he plans to form a task force to come up with the best solution to wean Hawai‘i off of sugary beverages.
“The fact remains that the link between sugar-sweetened beverages and health is undeniable,” Abercrombie said. “I have proposed the establishment of a task force, with members from the public and private sectors, to identify and then implement a solution to this very real health issue in our state. The group’s objective will be navigating us away from the path that has led obesity rates in Hawai‘i to have doubled in the last 15 years.”
Hawai‘i’s obesity rate among adults was at 23 percent in 2011, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The national rate is 33.8 percent.
The money aside, can soda taxes lower obesity?
Turns out, economists and health researchers say a tax can reduce consumption, while a tax expert says results have been a mixed bag and taxes can potentially increase consumers’ sugar intake.
A 2004 study found that sodas alone contributed 7.1 percent of the total calories in the U.S.
Multiple studies tout the estimated benefits of a soda tax lowering consumption of sugary beverages. Only four states have special taxes on sugar-sweetened beverages: Arkansas, Tennessee, Virginia and West Virginia.
Here’s a look at some of the research on the topic.
Institute for Health Research and Policy, 2011: Estimating the Potential of Taxes on Sugar-Sweetened Beverages to Reduce Consumption and Generate Revenue
Bottom line: “A modest tax on sugar-sweetened beverages could both raise significant revenues and improve public health by reducing obesity. To the extent that at least some of the tax revenues get invested in obesity prevention programs, the public health benefits could be even more pronounced.
The public health impact of beverage taxes could be substantial. An estimated 24 percent reduction in sugar-sweetened beverage consumption from a penny-per-ounce sugar-sweetened beverage tax could reduce daily per capita caloric intake from sugar-sweetened beverages from the current 190 to 200 calories to 145 to 150 calories.”
Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, 2009: Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Taxes and Public Health
Bottom line: “Numerous studies demonstrate that changes in the relative prices of foods and beverages lead to changes in how much people consume them. Several of these studies have estimated that a 10 percent increase in the price of sugar-sweetened beverages could reduce consumption of them by 8 percent to 11 percent.
One (study) found that an increase in the price of sugary foods would significantly reduce the prevalence of overweight and obesity among adults, leading the authors to conclude that taxing such foods, thereby increasing their relative cost, would likely be an effective strategy to reduce adult obesity rates.”
Yale Rudd Center for Food Policy & Obesity: Soft Drink Taxes: A Policy Brief
Bottom line: “Based on November 2008 price increase and volume sales information on Coca Cola and Pepsi sales in the U.S., demand for soda is “elastic,” meaning that a 10 percent tax would reduce consumption by 11.5 percent.
A 2009 systematic review of 112 studies of alcohol taxes on price effects establishes that increasing prices of alcohol is an effective means to reduce drinking.
It is important, for reasons of public support and public health, to designate revenue produced by a tax for programs related to health and nutrition, obesity prevention, etc. Programs benefiting underserved populations are especially important.”
The Tax Foundation, on the other hand, says soda taxes are “overreaching” and could potentially increase caloric intake by forcing consumers to turn to other alternatives to get their sugar fixes.
“Singling out soda and candy for taxation is a poor method of combating obesity,” the Washington, D.C.-based Tax Foundation concluded in a 2011 report.
Scott Drenkard, an analyst for the organization, wrote that such taxes “unfairly burden all who enjoy soda and candy, regardless of what might be otherwise very healthy lifestyle habits.”
“Further, taxes like this tend to have unintended consequences. Detailed economic analysis shows that when the consumption of soda is discouraged with higher prices, children and adolescents tend to substitute other food or drink to make up for lost calories.
The solution to the obesity problem will not come from abdicating personal decisions like eating choices to government. It will come from consumers making prudent decisions about their own diets, exercise and health needs.”
The controversial nature of the tax can be seen in the way Washington state voters reacted to a soda tax. The state enacted a revenue-generating measure in 2010 that imposed a tax on candy, bottled water and certain carbonated beverages. It was later overturned by a voter referendum in November 2010.
• Honolulu Civil Beat is an online news source serving Hawai‘i. Read more at www.civilbeat.com.
